About your Search

20121202
20121210
SHOW
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 78
CNNW 43
MSNBC 25
CSPAN 17
CURRENT 14
CNBC 13
FBC 11
FOXNEWS 10
CNN 9
KQEH (PBS) 5
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 4
KPIX (CBS) 3
KGO (ABC) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 287
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 287 (some duplicates have been removed)
months noctober and november... the deficit, almost $300 billion, $4.8 billion a day. they had $30 billion in revenue. but the spending is up 3 times that much, $87 billion. how do woe stop the out-of- control spending? how can we get the budget deficit under control? can we do that for our children and grandchildren? >> we don't cut back on medicare and social security benefits that impact middle-class and working families. we start with the rich. that's what the voters wanted. they don't want -- middle-class families like mine, they don't want to see their taxes go up $2200 after january 1. they want to keep the tax deductions that they have and allow for people who can afford it to pay down some of this debt and deficit-- >>> trey -- [overlapping dialogue] >> eric: how do we pay this down? >> eric, what you are hearing is very unfortunate because you asked a specific question about cutting spending, democrats will not talk about it. she won't talk about it right now. -- >>> that's not my question. how do we stop the spending? >> how we stop the spenning is to over the dlif and h
for washington to face, they do talk about the deficit and the debt in getting the fiscal house in order. that is not the full extent of the list. but behind different as we talk about priorities along partisan and racial lines. let's start with where we are and with the public has been pounded with this message week after we, on the question of resolving the immediate fiscal cliff. how would you describe your temperature, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me.
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
campaigned for re-election on the idea of a, quote, balanced approach, end quote, to deficit reduction, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them. >> i can tell you what i presented. it will be helpful. >> chris: let me -- >> it is our plan, let me do it. let me explain it. >> chris: i'd like to ask you about this part of it and you can tell me. >> okay. >> chris: $1.6 trillion in tax increases. more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending, next year, and, unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance. >> it is, let me explain what is in the explain they didn't report to you and explain, to people, which is, we propose alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed with republicans, last year, on defense and a range of other government programs, proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs, that is $600 billion. in fact, the health care savings in that plan, are larger than the plans we have seen republicans in the
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
that we need to go forward in getting our economy turned around, in reducing our deficit in creating jobs. so i think when jim deminute looked around, he looked and saw a future where he would be standing by himself very often and likely face ago dwindling even greater dwindling number of tea party advocates and allies. i think he headed for the doors because he thinks that probably, as he said, the only way he's going to have a significant impact is through a think tank. >> to switch over to your side of the capitol the house of representatives, the tea party there seems to be playing defense. i know alan west, one of your close buddies was upset that he lost, he is gone. how does it feel when you look at john boehner the speaker republican leader and he knows every day that the tea party which had held him hostage the last two years the tea party in the house is playing defense, as well it seems. >> well, i was playing more than defense. unfortunately it feels like in the house the tail continues to wag the dog. you still seem to have a leadership on the republican side in the house led
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
, to deficit reduction. a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them this week. >> i can tell you what i presented if it would be helpful. >> let me ask you. >> but it's our plan. why don't you let me do t why don't you let me explain it. >> well, i would like to ask you about this part of it and then anything i leave out you can tell me. 1.$6 trillion in tax increases, more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending next year, and an unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance? >> it is. let me explain what is in this plan that they didn't report to you and they didn't explain to people, which is we have proposed alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts, we agreed with republicans last year on defense and other range ever programs, we proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings to our healthcare and medicare programs. that's $600 billion. in fact, the healthcare savings in that plan are larger than the plans we've seen republicans in the past. >> is that what was in the budget?
to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ
the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr
. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> wow! i've never seen anything like this. >> when disaster strikes sometimes the only way out is to look within. current tv digs deep into the determination and escape. "trapped" experience the drama. back to back to back. >> hold on mates! >> catch the "trapped" mini-marathon saturday starting at 1 eastern. on current tv. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. get irresistibly clean and fresh carpets in your home with resolve deep clean powder. the moist powder removes three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while neutralizing odors for a clean you can see, smell and really enjoy. don't just vacuum clean. resolve clean. [ singing christmas carols in background ] aunt sally's singing again. it's a tradition honey. [ singing christmas carols ] mmmm. [ female announcer ] make new traditions with pillsbury grands! cinnamon rolls. [ f
. tea party 2, the sequel. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
. let me give you an example, all right? is deficit reduction a serious issue? it is. i'm in the middle of that debate right now. but you know what is a more serious issue according to the american people? the need to create millions and millions of jobs. now how often are you turning on tv and saying, "hey, we're in the middle of a terrible recession. it is, we have 15% real unemployment or underemployment in america. we've got to create millions of jobs." that's what working people are saying, but the big money interests are saying, "oh, we've got to cut social security. we've got to cut medicare. we've got to cut medicaid." there is no other option. so i give you that just as an example of how corporate media throws out one set of ideas, where the american people are thinking that jobs are probably more important. >> it has probably not escaped your attention that the mantra "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff" is played out every night on the evening news and the corporate news. what does that say to you? that you'd get "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff," but not "job crisis, job cr
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
're serious about reducing our deficit, while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy, and if we're serious about protecting middle class families, we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one wrins pal i won't compromise on. >> good saturday morning to you, mike. >> hi, alex. >> let's talk about the time line. is there a realistic one in which this can all get done by the beginning of the year? >> i think there is, alex. i think people know the parameters of the year. it's just can they get there, do they have the political will to get there. more importantly, alex, do they have the votes to get there in the house of representatives. you heard the president. he says no compromise on this issue of raising taxes for the wealthy. there's one glimmer of hope, how much to hike taxes. as you know, clinton tax rates for wealthiest americans were 39.6%. that's what's going to happen at the beginning of the year. right now they are 35%. the president has been insisting all along those rat
. the deficit is not the biggest problem in the country. the deficit is shrinking by hundreds of millions of dollars every year the president has been in office. to the extent we need to use debt to accomplish other goals, you may not like the idea in the abstract, but debt is cheaper now than it has been in a long time. focusing on the deficit is like arguing about the color you might paint your car while you're crashing that car into a tree. in washington the republicans are arguing about not a pretend problem but something that's a secondary problem. a problem that has no need to be the one problem we wreck everything else to solve. if you look at the real economy in the real world, outside of t stuff already think we're not growing enough to get back to a healthy economy. they cut the estimate to how much we are growing. people are not making enough money and therefore, not spending enough money and businesses are not hiring enough people. we need to be talking about growth. the problem in the country is an economic growth problem. the deficit, nobody wants there to be a deficit, but
we're getting this technically correct, how to cut the deficit in the medium to long-term so as to avoid an immediate and dramatic cut in the short-term. yes, that's right. now, this may well present a problem for john boehner's caucus, because john boehner sent a letter to the president this week with his own plan, which advocates what just might be the least popular policy in american politics. okay, maybe that's hyperbole. but just be a tiny bit, i mean, mandatory gay marriage, in which every single married straight person had to immediately divorce their spouse, and accept a state-assigned same-gender spouse to replace them would probably be more popular than what john boehner proposed this week. what john boehner is advocating is making medicare available to fewer americans. as it happens, there is brand-new polling out today on how americans feel about the idea of congress using these deficit negotiations to make cuts to medicare. 79% of americans say they do not want congress to touch medicare in these deficit negotiations. 79%. if you want to get specific about john b
. >> republicans frequently argue it's critical to get a handle on the deficit before the u.s. becomes like greece. there is a terrible economy with 26% unemployment highest in europe, almost no job opportunities for young people frequentenly lead toro riots in the streets. here is leading democrat is suggesting cutting spending too quickly is a real problem. >> the european community now is concerned about all the austerity. there are many, many things you can do to reduce debt. but still have a stimulus aspect of the economy. >> experts though say europe's us aer the city a drag on the economic growth because it relies too much on taxation while failing to reign in the expansion of government. that would seem to back up a republican theme in the fiscal cliff argument. >> if we raise taxes on the top two rate, a million small businesses who employ 25% of the work force it will cost us over 700,000 jobs and reduce economic growth, lower take home pay and those things. that is a bad scenario. >> the league negotiator on the republican side of the table facing mr. obama says raiding taxes on upper -
are good. if you look at the deficit, much higher in the u.s. than in the euro zone, for instance, debt, higher than many countries in the euro zone including spain, germany, france. yet, the united states of america is able to borrow at the lowest rate in pretty much it's recorded history. so you have a very, very diverse landscape at the moment, but certainly would that could be significantly improved, or worsened by the situation that we have concerning the fiscal cliff, the fiscal deficit, and the debt of the country, three topics that can be addressed now on a comprehensive and efficient fashion. >> so what should this mean? i think i could interpret any given number, to think oh, that means we should not touch taxes for any bracts, because it's as much money as we could have in it, or this means that we need more stimulus to keep the jobs going, or i could look at the debt and say this means we need to cut spending, so what does it mean? what would you, and what globally, what would mean the most for the u.s. to do? >> you know what you said? you would qualify as an economist. on
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, and again have fairness. this is the heart of the 3459er -- matter that is holding us here. as the public watches what is this about? this is about the $250,000 line that the president said in the campaign that he would honor and that that legislation today brings to bear. i urge my colleagues out of 435 members of the house, we only need a couple dozen republicans to sign the discharge petition. each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class. either sign the petition, urge the speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break if they are -- for 100% of the american people. please sign the discharge petition. let's get this done this week. we could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. the message would be clear to the american people. we heard you in the campaign. be fair. do something that works. work togetha >> today, the house democratic caucus chairman charge republicans to protect the middle class from a tax increase. they spoke to report
is to go over the fiscal cliff. it maximizing the deficit reduction. there's no deal cut between republicans and democrats. it's not going to reduce the amount of money coming out of the deficit by a lot. so if you do that, you go back to the clinton tax rates, cut some defense and we have a short, mild recession for two quarters. we have to get serious about the deficit e. i have no belief that the congress is going to get serious about the deficit. so tom cole was right because he wants to get the republicans back in the mainstream. but the best thing the country could do is go over the cliff. >> timothy geithner doesn't agree with you on that. >> he may or may not. but i looked at this a lot of ways. the people inside washington are awfully smart and awfully out of touch. we need to do something about the deficit. going over the fiscal cliff is the best thing we're going to get out of washington in terms of serious production to the deficit. we will suffer, but we got ourselves into this. we're not going to get out without some pain. i think we are going to go over the cliff.
by market opinion. we'll take stock of britain's progress towards deficit reduction, this ahead of the chancellor's autumn statement. senior fellow for international economics. will the numbers live up to the expectations. meanwhile, over in ghi narks the mainland's factories are crank out more goods at the fastest pace in month. >> chinese factories appear to be recovering. the hsbc pmi, a private gauge of manufacturing, and the government's official pmi, both show a steady improvement for the industry in november. the hsbc pmi final reading came in at 50.5, the quickest expansion in over a year. the industry saw a pick up in new orders as well as stronger exports thanks in part to christmas demand. the concern is about the the unevenness of the recovery. the sub indices for employment as well as small and medium sized companies ticked downwards and that suggested to some that the recovery is mainly led by investment in state-owned enterprises. a bigger worry is about the outlook for external demand especially in the united states. people here are worried about the fiscal cliff
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 287 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)